Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the 'auditable' trait and a high-level scope of allowed actions, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving moderate gaps beyond what annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes useful scope or exclusion information. There is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested payload, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct the command, what the payload should contain, or what the response will look like, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It only loosely maps command_type to the listed command categories, but leaves case_id, payload, trace_id, rationale, and idempotency_key unexplained. This partial coverage earns a low score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: submitting an auditable intake-review command. It enumerates the allowed command categories and explicitly excludes completing or reopening a case, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_intake or get_review_command.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about what commands are allowed and an explicit exclusion ('cannot complete or reopen a case'). However, it does not name alternative tools or provide direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it stops short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.